Should sex offenders wear GPS tracking devices?

JOE FANTAUZZI| YorkRegion.com

Point/counterpoint

Convicted sex offenders will be wearing GPS tracking devices if a Progressive Conservative government is elected in October, party leader Tim Hudak said.
The idea has drawn a mixed reaction, with passionate debate on both sides.
The Tories argue there are more than 14,000 names on Ontario's sex offender registry and that police do not know where those offenders are or what they are doing. Using GPS technology will help prevent victimization and improve neighbourhood safety, the Progressive Conservatives say.

The cost of implementing the program is estimated at $50 million.

But not everyone agrees with the specifics of the proposal.

YES

The rights of innocent children are tantamount to the rights of convicted pedophiles, co-founder of the Canadian Crime Victim Foundation Joe Wamback said.

The proposal to monitor sexual offenders with GPS technology gives police a tool needed to keep track of predators, he added.

And people have a right to know about sexual offenders in their neighbourhood because it is the first job of government to protect citizens, he said.

"We need to protect from the terrorists within," he added.

The current provincial registry is ineffective because it allows sex offenders too much time to contact police about where they are living and even permits them to provide false addresses, Mr. Wamback charged.
He refuses to listen to people who oppose the use of the devices on sexual offenders on the grounds of constitutional rights, saying the protection of children should be a birthright in Canada.

"Academic arguments do not exist in the real world," Mr. Wamback said.

To those who question the $50 million cost associated with the proposed GPS program, Mr. Wamback questioned the cost to society of having a child sexually abused — potentially resulting in long-term psychological damage that could keep the child from continuing education, finding stable employment, getting married and having children, "which is what we want for all our children".

GPS tracking will allow society to keep tabs on dangerous people if they move from community to community and protect children because the location of playgrounds and ball fields can be monitored and an alarm sounded if their perimeters are breached, he said.

"Once a predator, you are always going to be a predator," Mr. Wamback said.

"Now, we have to talk about management."

Given the breadth of sexual assault offences, "judicial independence" should play a significant role in determining who wears a GPS tracking device, Mr. Wamback said.

He has no time for people who would suggest the proposal is about anything but community safety.

"The statement that it's politically motivated is, itself, politically motivated," he said. "To me, it's a no-brainer."

NO

Using GPS technology on all sex offenders goes too far, lawyer and York University law professor James Morton said.

The number of people listed on the sex offender registry is enormous and ranges from people who really pose no threat to society to those who pose a real and present threat.

"A sort of blanket decision that everyone is going to wear one of these GPS units at all times forever really does raise a spectre of large numbers of people being permanently under surveillance and I find that problematic and troubling," he said.

Courts recognize the charge of sexual assault exists on a continuum, which differentiates degrees of seriousness between a pinch by a drunken teenager and a violent, non-consensual penetrative act, he said.

"That's why we have a range of sentences attached," he added, suggesting that range can vary between conditional sentences and several years in federal prison.

But while he is in favour of tracking some serious sex offenders with GPS devices — in fact, he believes there may be some application for GPS tracking in family law child access cases — the province is only permitted to pass laws related to public safety and not punishment.

And while it may be seen by some as old fashioned to talk about Judeo-Christian values, neither they, nor Islam, call for the dehumanization of someone for committing a crime, Mr. Morton said.
"I recognize jail is necessary and punishment is necessary, but I don't think we want to encourage vengeance as a basis for the criminal justice system," he said.

He acknowledges some offenders can't be rehabilitated, but the government can protect society without denigrating the humanity of the punished, he added.
There is also a question about whether or not current technology is capable of dealing with the vast amount of information that would be shared by the devices, Mr. Morton said.

If the government passes such a regulation, judges should be given discretion to impose the length for which the offender will wear the device.
Ultimately, Mr. Morton believes the GPS idea smacks of politicking.

"Overall, I see this as being a proposal intended for public consumption, rather than a proposal of any inherent merit."